Why is it that those who profess such great tolerance, are often
the least likely to display it? Why is it that “tolerance,” from such people
and groups who are highly driven by ideology, is only extended to those who
believe the same way they do? Is that not actually the definition of
intolerance? Because a businessman expressed his opinion (isn’t that called
“free speech,” and protected by the Constitution?) the nation was this week
subjected to a textbook display of intolerance, by those who seem to who claim
it as their exclusive and private domain.
This past week Dan Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A, a
restaurant chain, said in an interview on a syndicated radio talk show, “We are
very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family
unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married
to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.” To any rational listener,
that was an innocuous statement affirming a fundamental value based in
historical, biological, and anthropological fact, and just happens to be
reaffirmed in the Bible, since the building block of our society is the family
unit that perpetuates the species. After
all, how long would human civilization last if the basic family unit was
anything different than that averred by Cathy?
But to some radicals, so intent on redefining (irrespective
of biological fact) our interpretation of our basic social building block, this
was perceived as a vicious attack on their ideology and their agenda. And since
they are such a tolerant group, they proceeded to show us just how “tolerant”
they are, by calling for boycotts, “kiss-ins,” and other types of protests
against the family-friendly national chain of restaurants.
But that was just the beginning of the intolerant denunciations
against Cathy. The Jim Henson group that created the Muppets showed how
tolerant they are by announcing they were severing their commercial ties to the
restaurant chain. "The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced
diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified
Chick-fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future
endeavors," they declared. Apparently their standard for “tolerance” is
not very “diverse” or “inclusive,” as it obviously excludes people of faith who
think differently. Makes you wonder what bizarre dictionary they use to define
“diversity” and “inclusiveness” to exclude 70% of the population!
Others in the Hollywood community added their voices to the
echo chamber of intolerance. Paragons of social and moral consciousness, Miley
Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan, Kim Kardashian, and other Hollywood celebrities displayed
their immense tolerance by employing social media to denounce, attack, and
castigate Cathy and calling for a boycott of his firm.
Those who are against “hate” in the public square and our
cultural fabric should take special note of Roseanne Barr’s comments. She sent
out death wishes on Twitter, saying, "anyone
who eats S--t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating
antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ." And in typical social
Hollywood class, she Tweeted that those at Cathy’s company are "chick
filet- nazi chicken f---ing p****s." If I’m not mistaken, that sounds a
great deal like “hate speech.”
Actually we can thank Ms. Barr. Not only did she aptly
portray the ignorance and bigotry of those who think like she does, but also
for illustrating in exemplary fashion that Nazi-like totalitarian tactics of
intimidation, coercion, and forced conformity are on the left of the political
spectrum, rather than on the right. Forced conformity through political
correctness based on progressive ideals is an attempt to limit freedom of
speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. Such coercion is
antithetical to not only the principles of freedom our nation was founded on,
but is an affront to tolerance itself.
The irony is rich when
we realize that the progressive application of tolerance is limited to only
their ideological conformity. To them, tolerance is demanded for their
behavioral and ideological aberrance, but is disallowed for people of
traditional values, especially Christians. Their freedom of speech and
expression are absolutes to be respected and tolerated, while those who believe
differently are disallowed those same privileges.
Tolerance, in practice,
is not a universal quality to be collectively aspired to. Rather it has become
a selectively applied form of intolerance, and hate speech, from people who
talk so much about tolerating all views and religions, and condemn the very
kind of speech they themselves employ.
The ultimate hypocrisy is to claim a standard of behavior
yet fail to hold oneself accountable to that standard. If tolerance is a noble
virtue to which our society must aspire, it must be applied universally, not
just demanded of those who believe differently.
AP award winning
columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and
financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State
University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the
Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He
can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.